, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 355–371 | Cite as

Good Practice Guidelines for Decision-Analytic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment

A Review and Consolidation of Quality Assessment
  • Zoë PhilipsEmail author
  • Laura Bojke
  • Mark Sculpher
  • Karl Claxton
  • Su Golder
Review Article


The use of decision-analytic modelling for the purpose of health technology assessment (HTA) has increased dramatically in recent years. Several guidelines for best practice have emerged in the literature; however, there is no agreed standard for what constitutes a ‘good model’ or how models should be formally assessed. The objective of this paper is to identify, review and consolidate existing guidelines on the use of decision-analytic modelling for the purpose of HTA and to develop a consistent framework against which the quality of models may be assessed.

The review and resultant framework are summarised under the three key themes of Structure, Data and Consistency. ‘Structural’ aspects relate to the scope and mathematical structure of the model including the strategies under evaluation. Issues covered under the general heading of ‘Data’ include data identification methods and how uncertainty should be addressed. ‘Consistency’ relates to the overall quality of the model.

The review of existing guidelines showed that although authors may provide a consistent message regarding some aspects of modelling, such as the need for transparency, they are contradictory in other areas. Particular areas of disagreement are how data should be incorporated into models and how uncertainty should be assessed.

For the purpose of evaluation, the resultant framework is applied to a decision-analytic model developed as part of an appraisal for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK. As a further assessment, the review based on the framework is compared with an assessment provided by an independent experienced modeller not using the framework.

It is hoped that the framework developed here may form part of the appraisals process for assessment bodies such as NICE and decision models submitted to peer review journals. However, given the speed with which decision-modelling methodology advances, there is a need for its continual update.


Health Technology Assessment Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Review Team Appraisal Committee Decision Uncertainty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Elisabeth Fenwick provided the independent assessment of the case study models used here. The expert advisory group comprised: Pelham Barton (Health Service Management Centre, University of Birmingham, UK); Colin Green (National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, University of Southampton, UK); Luke Vale (Health Service Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, UK); Chris McCabe (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK); Suzy Paisley (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK); Alec Miners (Technology Appraisals Team, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, UK); Steve Palmer (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK); and Elisabeth Fenwick (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK). However, the views in this paper are those of the authors alone.

This study was funded by the NHS Research and Development Health Technology Assessment Programme. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the UK Department of Health.

Mark Sculpher also received funding via a Career Award in Public Health funded by the NHS Research and Development Programme.

The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this article.


  1. 1.
    Briggs AH, Goeree R, Blackhouse G, et al. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: choosing between treatment strategies for gastroesophagael reflux disease. Med Decis Making 2002; 22: 290–308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18 (3): 341–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet 2002; 360: 711–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8 (36): iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–158PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 461–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kendrick M, Johnson K. Long term treatment of Multiple Sclerosis with interferon beta may be cost effective. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18: 45–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decision analytic modelling in the economic evaluation of health technologies: a consensus statement. Phannacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 443–4Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997; 6 (3): 217–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eddy DM. Technology assessment: the role of mathematical modelling. In: Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies in Clinical Use, Institute of Medicine, editors. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985: 144–160Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Habbema JD, Bossuyt PM, Dippel DW, et al. Analysing clinical decision analyses. Stat Med 1990; 9 (11): 1229–1242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halpern MT, Luce BR, Brown RE, et al. Health and economic outcomes modeling practices: a suggested framework. Value Health 1998; 1 (2): 131–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hay J, Jackson J. Panel 2: methodological issues in conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations: modeling studies. Value Health 1999; 2 (2): 78–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISPOR Task Force. Principles of good practice for decisionanalytic modeling in health care evaluation. Value Health 2003; 6: 9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCabe C, Dixon S. Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 501–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nuijten MJ, Pronk MH, Brorens MJ, et al. Reporting format for economic evaluation: part II. Focus on modelling studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14 (3): 259–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramsey SD. Evaluating evidence from a decision analysis. J Am Board Fam Pract 1999; 12 (5): 395–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sendi PP, Craig BA, Pfluger D, et al. Systematic validation of disease models for pharmacoeconomic evaluations: Swiss HIV Cohort Study. J Eval Clin Pract 1999; 5 (3): 283–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sonnenberg FA, Roberts MS, Tsevat J, et al. Toward a peer review process for medical decision analysis models. Med Care 1994; 32 (7 Suppl.): JS52–JS64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Soto J. Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modeling: principles and practices. Utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18 (1): 94–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weinstein MC, Toy EL, Sandberg EA, et al. Modeling for health care and other policy decisions: uses, roles, and validity. Value Health 2001; 4 (5): 348–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 479–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zoë Philips
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Laura Bojke
    • 2
  • Mark Sculpher
    • 2
  • Karl Claxton
    • 2
    • 3
  • Su Golder
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Economics, University of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Centre for Health Economics, University of YorkYorkUK
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  4. 4.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations